If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

You are free to believe in these images. Personally, I would call them cartoons - or Primitive Playstation material. But you may disagree with that, so here's another aspect to consider: not only was this very special camera able to follow the Space Shuttle far up in the sky; it also always captures, by some astronomical coincidence, the same perspective on this very fast-moving aircraft - whether in 2002, 2006, 2009, or 2011. Amazing!

Official poster for the 2011 mission taken from wikipedia. I am speechless. The hollywoodian/Kubrick/Nicholson look from down up is intended to convey what exactly? Didn't this guy just had his wife shot in the head? Why would he put up with such crap? Reality and fiction are dangerously colliding, guys...

Simon the only explanation I can have for the difference in sky color in that 2002 shot is the focal aperture... because of the brightness of the booster, the telescope that closes up to the shuttle must have the diaphragm almost completely closed, hence the difference in the final result (just an idea).

As to the similarities in the point of view, it might be explained with the fact that maybe from Houston the shuttle always heads to the equator to reach the orbit, so the trajectory is always the same. This seems to be contradicted though by the amateur videos that depict different trajectories.

The attitude of these astronauts, their antics, are always disgusting. Like when we have to endure their corny hypocritical preaching about the environment because the earth looks so beautiful, or how horrible are the wars (fought by the same establishment that owns NASA, and with the satellites they put up there), and somehow the middle east always enters into it, as if they could see the bad Muslims from up there plotting against defenseless Israelis.

Right now it almost feels as if they organized the fake Tucson shooting only to have more attention for this mission. Sort of like with the fake Apollo 13 accident.

About the oddities in the launch footage, Simon, do you figure they might use fake footage to cover for errors and accidents (while the launch actually happens) or do you tend to believe more the completely faked launch?

This is the conclusion that some of us came to in the 'Arizona Mass Shooting PSYOP' thread. If this is what the Tucson shooting was about, then why do you think they would want us paying attention to this space mission? We should be asking ourselves what the end goal of all of this is. As for the legitimacy of the footage, the close up shots may be definite fakes, because I don't think they want us seeing what space really looks like, how far up these space shuttles actually go and what actually happens, so as to cover their own ass. The media fakery may go as far as faking space itself. If the moon landing footage is fake then I would say that the legitimacy of all supposed footage of space is put into question.

"The protagonist, Dr. Kris Kelvin, is a psychologist recently arrived from Earth to the space station studying the planet Solaris. He was married to Rheya (Harey in the original Polish), who committed suicide when he abandoned their marriage. Her exact double is his visitor aboard the space station and becomes an important character."

A back-story not unlike the Gif ford shitting and the twin Kelly brother.

This is a real head-scratcher: are we even looking at the same spacecraft?

SIX of a kind !!! Blimey! What are the odds of the ignitions of as many as 6 different shuttle launches (2002-2011) to look like 6 clones???
And what 's the deal with that '070' watermark (upper left) appearing on everyone of these videos?
(and yes, I have the source links to all six videos if you wish. Let me just keep digging a little more, ok?)

Question: why would these rockets not continue straight on - since they are still thrusting? We are supposed to be in orbit for Heaven's sake!
Air resistance cannnot account for these apparent, aerodynamically induced deviations.
And what causes that huge burst of smoke just as the rockets separate from the craft?

This is madness, folks. And - naturally - I am the one who'll be called a nutcase for pointing it out...

Brutal Metal wrote:I live in Florida and have seen it launch, Enough Said on this topic! I'm one of the Biggest skeptics in the fuckin word guys but sorry EVERYTHING isn't Fake! Apollo 11 Oh Yeah, Endeavor being a Real piece of machinery? Not Fake!

Dear Brutal Metal,

Please do not assume that I am questioning the existence of the Space Shuttle program. Ok? Don't.

Now, I only ask myself due questions raised by photographic records. If they are undue, I will retract them. Ok?

I will take this step by step. Are you game, Brutal?

How come the Cape Canaveral launch pad hasn't changed aspect at all in 42 years? Have you been there lately?

APOLLO 11 (1969)____________________________________ENDEAVOUR (2011)

I should have ended that reply by saying "I don't know where the shuttle ACTUALLY goes once it leaves spectators views from the ground!" All that space station mumbo jumbo where astronauts stay for 6 months plus at a time etc.. is a subject matter I'm not schooled on so I can't say I believe that stuff. The last time I was at the Kennedy Space center was 2005 but I've seen the smoke plume
in the sky from many launches since then... Hell local weathermen tell you how the visibility is gonna be leading up to the launch and how easy it'll be to see the smoke from the West Coast of Fla..

Brutal Metal wrote:
The last time I was at the Kennedy Space center was 2005 but I've seen the smoke plume
in the sky from many launches since then... Hell local weathermen tell you how the visibility is gonna be leading up to the launch and how easy it'll be to see the smoke from the West Coast of Fla..

Dear Brutal Metal,

I'm glad that you're contributing here, as I gather that you live in Florida.
Question for you: is it true that (as I have read around the web) there's a 3-mile limit+ for people to approach the launch site?

Below, you may read 3 comments grabbed from this video with two women watching from afar. As you can see, their vantage point doesn't allow them to make out very much at all about the shuttle itself - just a smoke plume, as you said. A binocular might help seeing a little more detail - but let's stay realistic about this, ok? We don't even know if these womens' video is authentic. Its soundtrack, for instance, is quite surreal.

TimeLapseSteve wrote:
How did this crack team of "filmmakers" get so damn close to﻿ the pad, and where do I apply?

triton115 wrote:
I just read that a space shuttle launch produces approximately 120 decibels of noise at 3 miles away,which is the closest you are allowed to watch a shuttle launch. Stand at the launch pad and you'll probably﻿ get close to 250 decibels of noise! Now that is really loud!

plupkination wrote:
Several days later my vacation ended, I went home, and have never gotten that close to seeing an actual launch in person again. I really appreciate the people who go out of their﻿ way to record these launches, as faithfully as they can, to try to record these for those of us who can't be there. I especially love the sound of the rocket motors! It must be truly awe inspiring not only to hear it and see it, but to feel it in your body as well.

Please keep commenting, Brutal Metal - and adding details such as a Florida resident like you can provide !

nonhocapito wrote:
Simon the only explanation I can have for the difference in sky color in that 2002 shot is the focal aperture... because of the brightness of the booster, the telescope that closes up to the shuttle must have the diaphragm almost completely closed, hence the difference in the final result (just an idea).

As to the similarities in the point of view, it might be explained with the fact that maybe from Houston the shuttle always heads to the equator to reach the orbit, so the trajectory is always the same. This seems to be contradicted though by the amateur videos that depict different trajectories.

Dear nonhocapito,

thanks for taking time responding (seems that almost no one wants to touch this subject with a bargepole as yet...). I truly appreciate the feedback and hope more forum members will help me along with these analyses - however tough this issue may be to even consider.

So, responding to your thoughts: if a camera (or telescope) diaphragm/light sensor worked the way you suggest, it would be nigh impossible to capture any of the surroundings of, for instance, the scene of an exploding bomb or missile. Everything around would turn black. That is, to the best of my knowlege, not the way cameras work. Here's that clip again, which I submitted above:

Regarding the 'cartoon' shots of the various shuttles (which to me look like a bunch of animation templates rendered in slightly different modes), I appreciate your observation that we have some 'amateur' videos which depict different trajectories from afar. My point was: the odds to have four different shuttle ascents depicted from an almost identical angle, with the shuttle at an almost identical pitch, yaw and roll - are astronomical. Moreover, the framing of these shots (dimension of the shuttle in the camera view) is also practically identical:

Please keep in mind that the 4 shots above are, supposedly, from 4 distinct Space Shuttle launches. Is it reasonable to believe that on each of these 4 occasions, this powerful 'telescope camera' (if it exists - something which needs to be verified) captured such very similar images?

It was such a long time ago and another platform which escapes me but...

The Columbia "accident" happened 2 1 2003 during the Butchers first term and soon enough after "9/11" and Flight 1897? to make me sit up and notice!

It must have been early in 2004 I was going through the early stages of scouring the SSDI for my non-existant passengers and for some reason I ran Columbia's crew, excluding the 1 Israeli and 1 Indian, through! If I get a chance I'll do it again later, but I seem to recall only one or two hits, the rest nada!

It's bio is replete with the same numberplay that we see eveyhwere!

"Mission STS-107 was the 113th Space Shuttle launch. It was delayed 18 times over the two years from its original launch date of January 11, 2001,"

This video allegedly shot from a Dutch Training helicopter flying at 100 ft somewhere in the USA shows the skytrails dipping behind the trees? The video is 1:11 long! About half way in a transmission cut in blurts "niner one one"...

Not forgetting that the debris field landed in Texas or was it Kansas and was swiftly looted by it's inhabitant leaving only a fragment of the nosecone!

wiki "The Houston Astros, who reside in the same city as Johnson Space Center and whose team name honors the U.S. space program, honored the crew on April 1, 2003"

Then there's Challenger also! Both worth having a look at when you get time!

"The remains of the crew that were identifiable were returned to their families on April 29, 1986. Two of the crew members, Dick Scobee and posthumously promoted Capt. Michael J. Smith, were buried by their families at Arlington National Cemetery at individual grave sites. Mission Specialist Lt Col Ellison Onizuka was buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. Unidentified crew remains were buried communally at the Space Shuttle Challenger Memorial in Arlington on May 20, 1986"

OMG. I just found a fifth one from Discovery - July 4, 2006
And a sixth one from Discovery - October 23, 2007

You know what? I'm not even going to provide the links to the respective videos that I found.
Look them up for yourself on Youtube. Just type, for instance "ENDEAVOUR JUNE 5 2002" in the Youtube search box.
They have all - evidently - been aired on TV. I'm a little tired of having to do all the work. Wake up, America! (and the rest of the planet).

simonshack wrote:
I'm with you on all your questions so far, and with your conclusion that essentially NO launch into outer-space seen on TV is credible and worthy of belief.

Dear Fbenario,

thanks for your support on this tough issue. Quite frankly, I'm quite shocked and disturbed myself at what I've learned in the last few days... It's really extremely hard to take in - even for my well-oiled, 'conspiratorial' brain matter !

Good Heavens - why would NASA lie to us ?

It's hard to tell what all of this means but, sooner or later, it certainly needs to be fully exposed.